If you read about the large airships of the past, you will see that most were lost to wind. Trying to get them moored, in the hanger, out of the hanger, and some in flight storms destroyed most of them.

The nature of the beast has not changed in the past 80 years, only the old farts that knew better have died off.

If you read about the large airships of the past, you will see that most were lost to wind. Trying to get them moored, in the hanger, out of the hanger, and some in flight storms destroyed most of them.

The nature of the beast has not changed in the past 80 years, only the old farts that knew better have died off.

I was talking to Keri Farrington the other day. She was one of the wingsuiters jumping from the airship (not a blimp, I believe) down in SFO for the live commercial last summer. She said that it was very expensive in helium costs to go to about 3000', that the airship had limited vertical range.

Now this new one speaks about "variable bouyancy" which means to me that they've engineered their way around this problem. Could be a very fuel cost effective way to get a big load to 12500. I'd jump it.

I think its a rather cool idea. Is it feasible for skydiving in the near future... prolly not. They're catering to the big dollar customers right now.. But, perhaps in time, something to take over the otter, caravan, casa market.

I like your idea too. 100 tons of payload is quite the bigway. Gotta be at least 100 Anvil Brothers worth!!

If you read about the large airships of the past, you will see that most were lost to wind. Trying to get them moored, in the hanger, out of the hanger, and some in flight storms destroyed most of them.

The nature of the beast has not changed in the past 80 years, only the old farts that knew better have died off.

Somebody did not read the spec sheets. Go to your room.

Lighter than air = sail (unless it is shaped like a pancake)

No mention of how it will weather a storm. Check back in 5 years and see how they are doing with it.

Alright, so you get two of them, and then you spread a giant cargo net between them. We're talking 2x football-field size. You get lifted into the air already in formation and you climb to altitude holding everybody's grippers. Then, when at altitude, they cut the net (with a lot of weight attached so it falls faster than the formation), and VOILA! 300 way! Don't even need oxygen!

Now this new one speaks about "variable bouyancy" which means to me that they've engineered their way around this problem. Could be a very fuel cost effective way to get a big load to 12500. I'd jump it.

The old way to do that was with balloonettes: adjustable air bags with in the hull.

A newer method would involve compressing the hydrogen down to liquid form. I recently read a scientific paper that said they had found a catalyst that reduced the energy cost of liquifying hydrogen. It was one of the rare elements sometimes co-located with platinum ore.

If you read about the large airships of the past, you will see that most were lost to wind. Trying to get them moored, in the hanger, out of the hanger, and some in flight storms destroyed most of them.

The nature of the beast has not changed in the past 80 years, only the old farts that knew better have died off.

Look at the history of the flying wing. It's an example of how the technology wasn't there at a given point to make something work.

Now imagine a military platform that could allow soldiers to float 50 ft above an urban warfare environment surrounded by bulletproof glass.

If you read about the large airships of the past, you will see that most were lost to wind. Trying to get them moored, in the hanger, out of the hanger, and some in flight storms destroyed most of them.

The nature of the beast has not changed in the past 80 years, only the old farts that knew better have died off.

Look at the history of the flying wing. It's an example of how the technology wasn't there at a given point to make something work.

Now imagine a military platform that could allow soldiers to float 50 ft above an urban warfare environment surrounded by bulletproof glass.

Technology can't trump physics. A large, lighter than air craft is at the mercy of the wind. It's really big and really light. Srong winds will overpower just about any engine you can put on them.

Not sure what you mean about the flying wing. It worked, and worked fairly well from the beginning. The XB-35 and YB 49 flew quite well. There were a few stability issues, but nothing that was insurmountable. It was politics, inertia and bad luck that doomed them (some say sabotage killed Edwards, but I'm not one of them).

And I don't want to imaging a slow moving target 50 feet up. RPGs or big guns (say 20mm or 30mm) would blow through just about any armor you could put on one of those.

... Look at the history of the flying wing. It's an example of how the technology wasn't there at a given point to make something work. ... .......................................................................

Shhh! Don't tell all those USAF pilots flying around in B-2 (flying wing) bombers. Don't tell President George Bush the Second that his Convair F-102 (or F-106) that it was an "unflyable" flying wing. ... and you better not tell all those (British) Royal Air Force crews who flew (flying wing) Vulcan bombers during the Cold War. Speaking of the Cold War, don't tell any USAF crews that their Hustler bombers were "unflyable" flying wings. ... and what about all those thousands of foreign pilots and all their hours flying "unflyable" Mirage fighter jets?????????

Now imagine a military platform that could allow soldiers to float 50 ft above an urban warfare environment surrounded by bulletproof glass.

If you think that is an application suitable for this aircraft, please, stay out of the aircraft business. Anything this large and slow is pretty much a sitting duck for any type of weapon system. At 50ft AGL, even if the cabin were a bullet-proof titanium shell it wouldn't matter because the rest of the aircraft certain can't be. It's not going to explode like the Hindenburg, but an RGP would certainly make a big enough hole in it to effectively vent gas and bring it down. And at 50ft . . . there'd be a hell of a lot of target. You wouldn't even have to really aim.

You just don't fly large, slow multimillion dollar manned aircraft at low level over enemies who can shoot them down with devices costing a couple hundred bucks. That's silly. That's Blackhawk down.